Perhaps he should not be. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, far more genocidal in his policies towards the Native Americans than Andrew Jackson, should also not be.
Not to mention his policies towards immigrants that would've made the Know Nothing movement look like bleedingheart liberals.
Oh wait, it isn't oppression if it happens to white Catholics!Of course, that too (though WASPs of the type who voted for the Republican Party in 1860 didn't consider Catholics to be "white" either).
But my point is that liberals should stop being intellectually-dishonest and admit their dislike of Jackson is based on his economic policies, not his Indian policy.
Either that or agree that Lincoln and Grant ought to be taken off US currency, as they were directly responsible for the killing of vastly more Native Americans than Jackson, in a policy of outright genocide, not removal, even if we say that Jackson was indirectly responsible for the actions of Van Buren (and Van Buren's actions are taken out of the historical context that the Georgia militia was on the verge of outright massacring the 5 civilized tribes).
As for who I think should appear on currency, first of all 'legal tender' currency as such shouldn't exist in the first place, but pictures of well-known natural features and native flora and fauna would do. Something politically-neutral that doesn't idolize individual persons.
Poll
